Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 23, 2012 1:00pm-1:30pm PDT

1:00 pm
1:01 pm
1:02 pm
1:03 pm
1:04 pm
1:05 pm
1:06 pm
1:07 pm
1:08 pm
1:09 pm
1:10 pm
1:11 pm
>> good afternoon, everyone. this is july 23rd, 2012 meeting of the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. our clerk today is derek evans and, he is supported by lisa miller. >> please silence all cell phones and electronic devices appeared document -- and electronic devices. documents should be submitted to the court. >> i would like to thank our
1:12 pm
sfgtv staff, general furlough, and jesse larsen, for broadcasting as today. -- jennifer lowe and jesse larsen for broadcasting us today. >> item number one, to add limitations on eligibility application deadlines for the receipt of assessor, reporters report. and to reduce the application fees for the mills' agricultural contracts. >> thank you. supervisor wiener. >> today, we are considering legislation that i am sponsoring to improve access to amend the minister of code by which we enter into mills act contract.
1:13 pm
this will improve and streamline the process of that we provide incentives to homeowners to maintain their stored properties in san francisco. -- their historic properties in san francisco. i will also be speaking with the san francisco heritage to formulate this legislation. i see that mike piller from heritage is here today to speak. " -- but the planning and other commissions have supported to -- have voted to support the mills act as well. the bills that maintain the property it in an appropriate way by agreeing to a strict, 10- year maintenance plan.
1:14 pm
each mills act proposed has to go through a rigorous process and each process is to help individual owners to maintain their properties while. this legislation will continue to affirm their commitment to preservation by providing incentives and making it easier to access them. they contribute to a public good in preserving the heritage of san francisco. other counties, for example, loss angeles, have a very robust mills act program.
1:15 pm
then diego has 1100 active contracts. oakland, which is a more recent program, has 24 active contracts. san francisco, since creating its program more than 16 years ago, has entered into five contracts. san francisco has not had a robust mills act program. the process is unduly lengthy and expensive and is unpredictable. this amendment does several things to improve the process. it significantly streamline it and makes it more predictable in terms of timetables. it imposes strict timelines, both for when applications are submitted, synchronizing for the time of the year, and timeline for the city's response. it reduces the fis, which have been, frankly, very high and
1:16 pm
prohibitive. it also focuses our approach to the mills act on the smaller properties, including single- family homes and multi unit buildings. as opposed to the megaprojects, which have typically been the only ones with resources and perseverance to actually take advantage of the san francisco mills act in the past. and of course, each and every mills act contract will continue to be subject to approval or disapproval by the board of supervisors. mr. chairman, this is a very good piece of legislation. we formulated in a collaborative way. and colleagues, i ask for your support. i believe we will have the planning commission presenting to us if there are no opening comments. >> good afternoon.
1:17 pm
as supervisor wiener mentioned, the mills act property contract program was enacted by the state of california in 1976. it was incorporated than as part of our administrative code in 1996, and since that time the city of san francisco has only entered into five mills act contracts. there are other municipalities that have entered into far more contracts than san francisco hats. we believe this will provide savings and tax reduction to help offset the cost of maintaining those older structures. both the commission and the --
1:18 pm
both commissions unanimously approved the modifications. most of the modifications that were incorporated by supervisor wiener and recommended unanimously by both commissions were made by the san francisco architectural heritage. the department also supports those modifications and believes those will reduce processing time and streamline the planning department that not only streamline the process, by adds more predictability for property owners as well. we're working on revising all of our mills act program location materials to make it easier for project sponsors to apply for the program. and mike johnson from the
1:19 pm
assessor's office is here to answer any questions on how we are trying to provide more clarity and predictability of specific milestones within the mills act program. that concludes my presentation unless you have any questions. >> colleagues, any questions for planning? >> i just have one. properties without code violations issued by the planning department, or dbi, are not eligible for the act. i know they have to be under the tax assessment value for buildings as well, but what else is exempted? rex in terms of qualifying buildings, as supervisor wiener pointed out, the building would have to be individually listed, or eight contributor to natural -- national district or in an historic local district.
1:20 pm
all violations have to be updated before the application can be processed. -- have to be updated before the application can be processed. but there are no other limitations to entering the program. >> i just want to note that the focus is on the smaller properties that the board sought discretion to approve any contracts. i believe the only potential historic district that is actively moving forward right now that i'm aware of is in district 8, which is north of the park and we have had a lot of a robust discussion and support. one of the concerns that homeowners have pointed out is that when you look at the promotion of the historic districts, it always talks about
1:21 pm
tax incentives. but in san francisco, because we administer -- the way that we administer it, those tax incentives are illusory because they cannot take advantage of them. i think this will generate more support for presentation -- preservation in the city. >> thank you. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? please, come forward. we will limit it to two minutes per person. >> ♪ were sergeant pepper's lonely hearts club land ♪ i thought you would like to know ♪ ♪ get back and let the budget grow ♪ ♪ sergeant pepper's lonely ♪ ♪ sergeant pepper's lonely ♪ ♪ sergeant pepper's lonely ♪ ♪ and it's the land ♪
1:22 pm
♪ it's wonderful to be here ♪ ♪ it's certainly at thrilled ♪ ♪ and i would like to see you get all those lovely bills. -- lovely bills ♪ ♪ sergeant pepper's lonely hearts club band ♪ ♪ >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am on the historic preservation commission. but i'm here myself. i can support -- the commission enthusiastically supported this legislation. i want to thank supervisor wiener for spearheading this and making it possible, especially with all of the negotiations and the complexity of it. he is right. i hope this is just the beginning of exploring
1:23 pm
incentives for historic preservation. there's already some occupancy, i would like to see some of that. we need to see if there are other ways that we can make that happen if legislated. i would also like to make sure that after a year or two of working this program in its reform state, that we keep looking for more ways to make it more efficient and cost- effective and easier for the homeowner. i look forward to after seven years it surpassing san diego and los angeles. -- after some years it surpassing san diego and las angeles. >> mike piller with the san francisco architecture heritage.
1:24 pm
certainly, the mills act reform has been a longstanding priority for san francisco heritage. i would like to applaud the supervisor for spearheading this in a truly collaborative matter -- manner. along with the county assessor's office, as well as incorporating the most recent comments from each pc and the planning commission. we strongly support this legislation. this legislation aims at extending this benefit to owners of all manner of historic properties, regardless of their value. as noted earlier, san francisco's mills act program, though it has long been in place, it has been illusory and not readily available to
1:25 pm
property owners. we hope to rectify that by borrowing from other cities that have well-established programs, implementing best practices. and i would like to read knowledge the efforts of the planning department in pulling those cities and serving as an -- surveying them. >> is there anyone else from the public that would fight to speak? public comment is closed. thank you to mr. fry and to revise our winner. -- the and to supervisor wiener. can we move this forward to the meeting on the 24th? can we move this forward without objection? rex with a positive recommendation? >> with a positive recommendation. thank you. please call item no. 2. >> an ordinance in the planning code to establish residential districts, removing hp and
1:26 pm
square footage limitations, and amending the order. >> thank you for having this item before you, and to the committee members for considering it. the item before you is a pretty simple piece of legislation, but could have significant positive impact in my neighborhood. as you know, the legislation does a number of things, primarily establishing outside sunset commercial districts. these are tools we have in many other places, in and out of command, west portal, broadway, castro, etc. we have a number of different things that it does. within these four hours at the commercial districts, we presented to zoning controls for
1:27 pm
the most part, but one is for a couple of other things. one is to allow for a 5 ft. ground floor height space. we have increased the ground floor space we can have more attractive retail space. we want to encourage active ground floor uses. most of the conversation came about because we wanted to find a way that we would have more control and our commercial areas to allow neighbors and businesses to say exactly what they want in their areas. but we also wanted to make sure that we were encouraging active spaces and have more space is where people would want to go and participate. it also does change slightly the definition for trade shop. this is something that is already applied to all commercial areas, or is allowable at all commercial areas.
1:28 pm
it removes the one-third limitation on mechanical equipment. and it also adds language to control for noise, odor, and garbage. this was directly after feedback from members of the public on this item. we say we want to have an active retail, made in ink -- component in any of these trade shop areas. that is the essential for a vibrant space. we are looking to make some changes. there are a couple of things we do want to speak in terms of the process. we did go to the planning commission as well and receive recommendation with a few modifications. in terms of substantive items, we did incorporate many of the areas where there were recommendations made to us.
1:29 pm
there were only a few exceptions. one is, instead of having four commercial areas, they wanted us to have it consolidated two three. but we felt it was for distinctive street, and we thought that would be easier and less disk -- and less confusing. we requested that we keep the four distinct named areas. right now come up with the trade job definition, with the pressure in the back and at the front, there was a question about whether they had to be the same shop. could use something different in the back from the front? planning has said, let's just leave that lose. our neighborhood commercial folks said, why don't we tied uses together. we have continu